The 1st District Appellate Court has rejected a woman's lawsuit against a clinic over an abortion that she regretted.
The ruling appears to be the first of its kind in Illinois.
The 16-page appellate opinion denies the woman's argument that she is entitled to damages against the abortion clinic. She alleged that the clinic staff had a duty to tell her that she was terminating a human being as a matter of biological fact.
The opinion, written by Justice Rodolfo Garcia, affirms the dismissal of the suit that was initially brought as a class action in Cook County Circuit Court.
Identified as Mary Doe, the plaintiff had an abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Chicago in 2004. Two years later, she filed a malpractice action against the clinic based on informed consent.
Doe alleged wrongful death of her fetus, intentional infliction of emotional distress and a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
Before the procedure, Doe asked a clinic counselor whether an abortion would terminate the life of a human being in the biological sense. The counselor said it would not.
Had the clinic told her that she was terminating the life of a human being, Doe wouldn't have had the abortion, she alleged.
Mary K. Rochford, a former circuit judge who is now on the appellate bench, dismissed Doe's suit with prejudice. Rochford ruled that Planned Parenthood owed no duty to Doe to tell her that an abortion terminates a human being's life in the biological sense as a matter of law.
In Friday's appellate ruling, Garcia reviewed Acuna v. Turkish, a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that held that the court can't drive public policy on when life begins because the question divides the medical community and society at large.
"We echo the observation of the New Jersey Supreme Court," Garcia wrote. "No court, regardless of where it sits, has found a common law duty requiring doctors to tell their pregnant patients that aborting an embryo, or fetus, is the killing of an existing human being."
Garcia noted that differing scientific, moral and philosophical viewpoints apply to the current case.
"The negative answer from the Planned Parenthood counselor to the plaintiff's question of whether 'there was already a human being in existence' during the plaintiff's intake evaluation simply reflects the opinion of Planned Parenthood on when life begins," Garcia wrote.
Planned Parenthood was represented by Alan S. Gilbert, Wendy N. Enerson and Kristen C. Rodriguez of SNR Denton.
"It was clear that she knew and signed a consent form that 'I know I'm here for an abortion.' She knew there was going to be a termination of pregnancy and that she would not have a child," Gilbert said.
Doe was represented by Steven A. Denny of the Law Office of Steven A. Denny P.C. and New Jersey attorney Harold J. Cassidy.
Cassidy said he will ask the Illinois Supreme Court to hear the case.
Cassidy said the ruling accepts as true that an abortion qualifies as the killing of a human being. The question is whether Planned Parenthood is obligated to tell a woman that fact when she asks about it, Cassidy said.
"All we're saying in this case is if a woman asks for that information, she is absolutely entitled to it," Cassidy said. "This is a woman's rights case. This is the right of a woman to make a decision herself and get all the information she needs and apply her own discreet, moral or philosophical beliefs as they exist.
"What has happened here is Planned Parenthood replaced her judgment with theirs by denying her the scientific facts and giving her their philosophical viewpoints. And the court is saying that at Planned Parenthood, she should expect nothing more than getting their philosophical point of view."
Cassidy also said he decided against trying to have the case certified as a class action.
Justices Robert Cahill and Robert E. Gordon concurred in the opinion, which is Mary Doe, etc. v. Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area, et al. 2011 IL App (1st) 091849.